The executing court is justified in dismissing objections filed by the judgment debtor in execution proceedings summarily if the objections are vague and do not raise any triable issue.

Miss Kamlesh Sharma, J.—Admit. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the revision petition is heard and disposed of finally. By way of this revision petition the petitioner-judgment debtor has challenged the order dated 17-5-1995 whereby its objections in Execution Petition No 120/10 of 1994 pending in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Shimla are dismissed and warrant of possession has been issued.

2. This case has a chequered history. Its facts in brief are that in a petition under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 eviction order dated 7-1-1978 was passed by the Rent Controller Shimla against the petitioner-judgment debtor on the ground of non-payment of rent, which was further affirmed in an appeal by the Appellate Authority by order dated 2-9-1978. The revision petition filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 12-12-W79, as by that date the amount of rent determined by the Rent Controller stood deposited but validity of the said deposit was left open to be agitated by the parties in appropriate proceedings.

3. Thereafter, the respondent-decree holder filed Execution Petition before the Rent Controller, Shimla which was resisted by the petitioner- judgment debtor by filing objections but failed. The objections were dismissed, by the Rent Controller by order dated 26-9-1981, against which revision petition was filed in this Court which was also dismissed on 21-5-1982 upholding the order dated 26-9-1981 of the Rent Controller and holding that the deposit of arrears of rent beyond the period of 30 days from the date of the eviction order was not legal and valid and eviction order could be avoided only if the amount due would have been paid with in the prescribed period, which can neither be enlarged nor abridged by the Court.

4. Against the order of this Court the petitioner-judgment debtors and others preferred S L. Ps. which were allowed by the Supreme Court and Civil Appeal Nos. 1130/91 and 2117/82 were registered but ultimately the said civil appeals were dismissed by the following orders on 13-4-1994: "Civil Appeal 1130/91.—The short question raised before us whether the period of 30 days under section 14 (2) of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (2 (a) proviso) could be extended is covered by the JT 1993 (1) p. 162, Madan Mohan and another v. Krishan Kumar Sood. Then again merely because the appellant had complied with the order of Rent Controller in depositing the rent within 30 days it does not mean the principle of merger would apply where the appellate Court had fixed a different rent of Rs. 475 and passed the judgment on 13-4-1979, In such a case, the deposit made on 19-5-1972 (sic) is beyond the 30 days contemplated under the proviso. There are no merits. Civil Appeal 1130/91 is dismissed. Civil Appeal 2117/82.—In view of the judgment reported in JT 1993 (1) SC 162, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Three months time is granted with usual undertaking to be filed within four weeks." Thereafter, the respondent-decree holder filed Execution Petition No. 120/10 of 1994, in which the petitioner-judgment debtor company was served for 21-10-1994, on which date time was taken to file objections. Win n despite further opportunities, objections were not filed, the executing court proceeded to issue warrant of possession on 29-1-1995, against which order Civil Revision No. 17 of 1995 was filed in this Court The said Civil Revision was heard and finally disposed of on 28-4-1995 with a direction to the petitioner-judgment debtor to file objections within two weeks from the dare of the order, which would be disposed of by the executing court within one week keeping in view the orders of the apex Court. It was made clear that no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner-judgment debtor. In pursuance of this order, the petitioner-judgment debtor filed objections, which have been decided by the impugned order and again warra